The Darryl Sutter effect: Assessing the aftermath

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A lot of Jack Adams coach bad teams (it's sort of a "you did way better than expected" award) so on a bad team a goalie can make a huge difference.
Hartley had Ramo and Hiller playing .912 and .918 respectively when he won. The next year they played .909 and .879 and the Flames were out of the POs.

Even on non-bad teams: last year the Bruins were by no means a bad team, but they were certainly not as good as their record and a lot of that was Ullmark.

I don't think this point can be emphasized enough. Goaltending has such an outsized effect on results. No skater can consistently have such a massive impact on winning hockey games as a goalie.

When you look at the numbers we have publicly available, the 21/22 and 22/23 Flames were pretty consistent in their defensive metrics from year to year. The difference was that in 22, Markstrom stopped everything and in 23 he stopped nothing. Lots of fans talked about how Sutter had changed the system, and the Flames were playing worse defensively. The numbers say they were about the same though.

I think subconsciously fans will downgrade or attach less meaning to scoring chances that don't score. If the Preds get a 5 bell scoring chance and it is saved, everyone goes "nice" and moves on to something else. If the puck is in the back of the net, everyone is going to seek out the reason for the goal and assign blame on who they think is culpable.

So in both cases the scoring chance could have been equal, but the perception of the play is radically changed by whether the goalie stops the puck or not. That boils down to human nature. Only way to get around that is by breaking down and documenting every scoring chance. Nobody does that except professionals employed by NHL teams because its a full time job. The media and fans just break down the scoring chances that resulted in goals and then craft a narrative using an incomplete picture.

[Paulie Walnuts]

We need to move on from he horror show that was Darryl Sutter.

It's been talked about all off season.

Go back and listen to Don Maloney speak and read the article Sutter was launching a mental warfare with the team. He said he he spoke to Sutter for almost 3 hours to let him know why he was being fired.

Something changed in him after he got the extension.

[InternationalVillager]

"I interviewed 25 players, coaches, coaching staff, training staff, spoke to prominent agents who represent key players on our team. It became clear to me that we needed a new voice to guide us forward."

- Don Maloney

What more needs to be said? What more needs to be discussed and/or why is there even a discussion as to whether there was fault to lay at Sutter's door?

The conclusion of a process that included 25 players, coaching staff, training staff and agents was that Sutter should be fired.

If Don Maloney hadn't said this out publicly, no one would believe it either. Now hear it from me again - there was a very LARGE consensus that Sutter needed to be replaced. He made the Calgary Flames toxic. The team's 2 best star players left even after they had career seasons with Sutter. Why? They didn't want to play for him another minute. Tkachuk felt that he could go be a superstar wherever he went and wanted the ice time, the responsibility to do whatever he wanted/felt that he would back it up. (guess what-- he proved that in Florida). His ice time with the Flames and usage was a BIG PROBLEM for Tkachuk. He went from 17:54 in his career season with Sutter to 20:26 with Florida. He felt that he should get as much time as the elite players in the league (McDavid/Draisaitl case in point). Like why is it a discussion that he WASN'T the problem? There are things in life that matter more than results on the sheet of ice. Maybe not to some fans....but that is who I am writing this message to.

Huska can come in and this team might still be mediocre but let me tell you this-- the players, staff etc will be MUCH better off in their POV.

[Paulie Walnuts]

The ice time is interesting to read about because that was incredibly frustrating.

Star players get ice time go across the league no one uses a 115 point player like a plugger.

Conroy even said it's been something Huberdeau has said it to him many times. I need more ice time I can't do anything from the bench.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Still waiting on that abuse to support staff claim

[Paulie Walnuts]

https://theathletic.com/4614335/2023...shared_article

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

Still waiting on that abuse to support staff claim

Who claimed he was abusive?
I haven’t gone back through the thread but did someone actually claim he was abusive?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Who claimed he was abusive?
I haven’t gone back through the thread but did someone actually claim he was abusive?

He had a hit a player during the the season.

What's being described is mental abuse and creating a toxic work environment.

I think his ego exploded so we went extreme. New contract unofficial captain he went wild. Tarnished his legacy it wasn't like he was beloved figure but he wasn't no Mike Babcock.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

He had a hit a player during the the season.

What's being described is mental abuse and creating a toxic work environment.

I think his ego exploded so we went extreme. New contract unofficial captain he went wild. Tarnished his legacy it wasn't like he was beloved figure but he wasn't no Mike Babcock.

Sorry to clarify I was asking who claimed he was abusive to support staff, as that seems to be something that people are objecting to, but I can't see who made the claim.

I said he was fired in part for how he treated support staff, but that's a good distance from saying he was abusive.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Sorry you're right, I totally misspoke with adding abuse. Still waiting for quotes or inside information about treating support staff poorly. If it's just something you heard fine, we'll take it as that. Textcritic mindlessly parroting it as fact was odd though

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I don't think this point can be emphasized enough. Goaltending has such an outsized effect on results. No skater can consistently have such a massive impact on winning hockey games as a goalie.

When you look at the numbers we have publicly available, the 21/22 and 22/23 Flames were pretty consistent in their defensive metrics from year to year. The difference was that in 22, Markstrom stopped everything and in 23 he stopped nothing. Lots of fans talked about how Sutter had changed the system, and the Flames were playing worse defensively. The numbers say they were about the same though.

I think subconsciously fans will downgrade or attach less meaning to scoring chances that don't score. If the Preds get a 5 bell scoring chance and it is saved, everyone goes "nice" and moves on to something else. If the puck is in the back of the net, everyone is going to seek out the reason for the goal and assign blame on who they think is culpable.

So in both cases the scoring chance could have been equal, but the perception of the play is radically changed by whether the goalie stops the puck or not. That boils down to human nature. Only way to get around that is by breaking down and documenting every scoring chance. Nobody does that except professionals employed by NHL teams because its a full time job. The media and fans just break down the scoring chances that resulted in goals and then craft a narrative using an incomplete picture.

I think that this is an rational and reasonable take.
It does strike me as interesting that Huska has indicated he wanted to change both the the defensive system and offensive system from Sutter's traditional approach. In changing defensively from man-on-man to more of a zone defence, they are hoping to avoid the situation where significant scoring chances are given up if a person gets beat. Last year the Flames can largely dictate the pace of play, but they were liable for the occasional breakdown that results in a huge chance in the back of the net. To be clear Markstrom was terrible last year, for sure. However, the Flames also gave up lots of very high danger chances when they broke down. When a man got beat, it was breakaways or two on ones the other way.
I also think that the Flames agree with a lot of people around here that the strategy of simply throwing the puck on net from anywhere was not going to generate a lot of offence.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

Sorry you're right, I totally misspoke with adding abuse. Still waiting for quotes or inside information about treating support staff poorly. If it's just something you heard fine, we'll take it as that. Textcritic mindlessly parroting it as fact was odd though

Read the article.

You have inside information from a poster here and others.

Is it normal for a team to interview support staff, agents as part of a exit interview? Seems like something happened that required a deeper dive.

Who knows what the physical altercation was, but it seems like being a mentally abusive person and difficult to work with cost him his job.

No one just fires someone and pays them 8 million to go away even before they coach 1 game of that extension.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by NegativeSpace

I think that this is an rational and reasonable take.
It does strike me as interesting that Huska has indicated he wanted to change both the the defensive system and offensive system from Sutter's traditional approach. In changing defensively from man-on-man to more of a zone defence, they are hoping to avoid the situation where significant scoring chances are given up if a person gets beat. Last year the Flames can largely dictate the pace of play, but they were liable for the occasional breakdown that results in a huge chance in the back of the net. To be clear Markstrom was terrible last year, for sure. However, the Flames also gave up lots of very high danger chances when they broke down. When a man got beat, it was breakaways or two on ones the other way.
I also think that the Flames agree with a lot of people around here that the strategy of simply throwing the puck on net from anywhere was not going to generate a lot of offence.

Its a pretty much full pressure style, its hard to play that way all the time. It can get results for sure, but it was clear the team was unable to grasp that style of play.

A lot of guys chasing around and trying to play around the boards and another person comes into that pressure situation which created a bunch of holes and breakdowns.

Probably one of the most frustrating things about him last year, he blew up lines, was extra Sutter grumpy but a guy who built is reputation as a top defensive coach made zero changes to the defensive system that had us giving up great chances.

He has always talked about winning the Jennings as the trophy he leaves to win in the regular season, but last year after midway through it was just finishing close to Vegas in our division for goals against. We did, but it was the highest scoring division in the league and the style we played couldn't keep up.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

No one just fires someone and pays them 8 million to go away even before they coach 1 game of that extension.

I'm sure the results on the ice were the main issue. If the Flames won a couple playoffs rounds are we convinced Sutter would be gone still?

[Southside403]

https://youtu.be/XNXDmjNG4q0?si=B04h240uDvhKZjyk
Thank you Darryl for the good times and bad
Bringing kipper was the best along with the other great memories.

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by Southside403

https://youtu.be/XNXDmjNG4q0?si=B04h240uDvhKZjyk
Thank you Darryl for the good times and bad
Bringing kipper was the best along with the other great memories.

Uh, interesting bump there bro